User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2017/January

Book of Revelation

galien8 06:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Literal, for which the text does not need a secret key for decrypting and interpretation. In: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation Ian.thomson approved it. You expanded it and later removed it yourself? TIP: Make Literalism of it, don't know if that is an English word, but it sounds better in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC) galien8 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Some people think there is a key for the symbolism in the book, once you have the key you understand it (maybe only backwards in time). But the oldest and most common interpretation is literal, so this should be in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) galien8 06:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Interpretations ----> Eschatological list

My reply is that "Christ could come back at any moment in future" is futurism. Literal interpretation does not mean much, see e.g. The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith (sociologist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There a hundreds of competing and irreconcilable theologies which all claim that they interpret the Bible literally. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 08:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC) With what you said, is an argument FOR (pro) my * Literalism entry added, I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

• @Johan van der Galien: do not speak on my behalf. I approved nothing -- I only removed the unsourced and redundant material. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Ian.thomson: Oh sorry, I thought since you did not remove it, you approved it, did not want to talk on your behalf galien8 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Johan van der Galien: My argument is that "literal interpretation of the Revelation" could fit many different interpretations, so it isn't clear at all which specific interpretation do you mean by "literal interpretation of the Revelation". From what you added in the article, I have inferred that you mean futurism. "Christ could come any time soon" is called futurism. It isn't called literal interpretation, since there are many literal interpretations. So if you mean Second Coming, Tribulation, the Rapture and such, it is already in the article, it is called futurism. It would be odd to add another entry for the very same concept. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I want to stress on the fact that most people think there is a secret key for the symbolism, but historically many people have believed its literal (actually your artist drawings in the article painted it literal, that can mean two things either they draw symbolism with an intend or they believed it will happen literally so) like "the beast from the sea, with seven heads and seven crowns and ten horns, that spoke like the red dragon". I admit that one could be symbolism! But then again people could think that things like "a quarter of mankind is exterminated by sword, by famine, by plague, and by the wild wolves of the earth" is also symbolic. Moreover "the sea turns to blood". How can these things ever be symbolic? We must not misinform the people. How do you want to call when something is maybe partially symbolic and partially genuine literal intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

@Johan van der Galien: We do not make the call, WP:SOURCES make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 04:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC) OK! I will try, I will go ...from the desert to the well... soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

There are Evangelical literal interpretations of the Revelation which perfectly fit futurism. So, you would have to show that a WP:DUE view of WP:SOURCES is that a severely literal interpretation is different from futurism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC) OK I will try, I see the Dutch expert(s) 2017-01-22, and listen to what they have to say. galien8 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

See WP:1DAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Dutch experts from the Portuguese Evangelical Church in The Netherlands say the interpretation of The Book of Revelations comes from your communion with Jesus Christ. AMEN galien8 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

@Johan van der Galien: Here inside Wikipedia we prefer communion with reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 04:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) very funny :-D GOOD LUCK!!!! galien8 04:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Thanks Tgeorgescu. I just added to the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Maldives107 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Accusations against you

I've told him to retract them or he'll be taken to ani. Feel free to do that if he doesn't, he's in a different timeline to me. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)